Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Personally I can see why he's against "dead" training, but I think he fails to acknowledge the fact that it's helpfull (or even necessary) for beginners to know what's coming in order to learn the techniques.

Personally I can see why he's against "dead" training, but I think he fails to acknowledge the fact that it's helpfull (or even necessary) for beginners to know what's coming in order to learn the techniques.

Well you can learn and practice in a live setting that is at first fluid but measured resistance then you quickly progress to full resistance. Many techniques are functionally useless against full resistance. It is up to the individual to learn, realize and come to judge in his own travels why some things continue to exist and why some men would even be taken seriously and have a following.

I think his points are perfectly fine. On any given day it sounds like much of what I say in training. I think his ending commentary on the journey of a martial artists from fear and uncertainty-to self doubt and more fear is accurate for many, as well as his reasons why..
His thoughts on those who based an art on agreement of form and involuntarily offering a mind set for trained, conditioned response that is largely an agreed re-action to a known stimulus is fine.

But in fairness, everything thing is "measured" from many arts: Gi, no Gi, strikes, knees, etc etc. We have increased levels of more realistic aggression to the more passive agreements. Thus randori that is never truly randori is born. It is a stepped, staged and controlled level of aggression meant to foster a feeling of empowerment. Some dismal by any measure.

If one wished to get heady and intellectual about the discourse of trained aggression-and the typical passive/ aggressive commentary frequently offered in response "Buy a gun." or "Use a bomb." The reality is more mundane. You can spend equal time training to fight -to learn to fight as you can learn a moving meditation rather tame form. The two will never meet. And that's fine as long as its honest and self assessed. Some could care less about fighting and are having fun.
For those who do not coldly look at the differences- the only way to make a fast point for comparisons is to imagine inviting a group of experienced guys in with MMA training and light gloves on and offer them to many martial artists as fodder for the next "randori" session. It makes the understanding of "stepped, staged and controlled levels of aggression, meant to foster a feeling of empowerment" easier to grasp.
For many people they would feel overwhelmed and undone. and not in the least way able to "actualize" clean technique or principles, they have been using and working in their "randori." Nor perhaps "empowered" in any measurable degree.
But as I said there is ALWAYS some measure of agreement or control. I almost got my jaw broken this Sat. by an elbow strike from the mount. Strictly speaking, I slipped up and I was grateful for our "agreement."

Overall his take on aggression and conditioning matches my own.
Aggression is not just an action it is a mindset. Triggered in some, trained in others. It can be daunting, and difficult to overcome.
But......Conditioning allows for sustained delivery of aggression. As is posted on the wall at the West point gym-and noted by military trainers; "Fatigue makes cowards of men." If you play with experienced guys, who will stall you, wet blanket you, and keep nailing you from a distance till you gas out, then take you down or out. There is a skill in using conditioning as a weapon.
No road work, no heavy bag work, and no gym? No game. You're only kidding yourself.
What is left is perfectly fine though...."stepped, staged and contolled levels of aggression, meant to foster a feeling of empowerment"

His Skill and intelligense catagories I agree with, but the use of these as skill sets is far more complex then was allowed for in his speach. Hopefully he had something equally valid to offer in those areas.

1. See Jason, he is god like around here.
2. Try submitting an opponent in nikkyo, sankyo,yonkyo or gokyo for that matter, see if they find options? (provided your waza is effective) They will not escape and if you tweak your technique a little harder they will submit. But that is not why we practice aikido.

Before you drive or steer your vehicle, you must first start the engine, release the brake and find gear!

Interesting video. The guy makes some valid points, however, his manerism and language make him sound like a person who has not been around for long enough to actually experience a really good techique applied by someone who really knew what he was doing.

Mathew are you talking about Jason Delucia? I value his opinion, but would not say he is "god like" around here. I don't believe anyone is for that matter.

Nikkyo, sankyo, yonkyo, gokyo are certainly valid submission techniques, that is not in debate. The problem I have had is getting to them in a fully resistive situation. I have landed nikkyo once in the last year, I use sankyo as a temporary controlling technique regularly. Yonkyo has proven to be useless and can't remember ever using gokyo. Ikkyo I have used the principles of everyday, not as applied in aikido though...in principle.

In a fully resistive environment, they always have options unless you control their balance or center (dominate). Even then it is difficult to submit someone with these techniques....at least in my experiences.

Does not invalidate them as a training methodology, and they do come more in to play with weapons. Weapons can change the dynamics some....however even with weapons, the best plans and technique end up in something other than what you practice in a controlled environment. (Matt makes this point clear).

When you are training from effectiveness, you train for a "70%" solution and isolate failure points to mitigate them. When you train for principle and perfection as in the DO arts, you do not concern yourself with these "points of possible failure", and train the whole spectrum of principle.

I think you have to be careful not to confuse effectiveness, with principle. Where Matt and I would differ is I don't think it is a necessarily a waste of time to train principle. However, I agree if you want to be effective, you don't necessarily need to waste your time studying principle oriented practices.

Interesting video. The guy makes some valid points, however, his manerism and language make him sound like a person who has not been around for long enough to actually experience a really good techique applied by someone who really knew what he was doing.

I can understand how you feel as he is fairly opinionated and somewhat critical of some practices, which would tend to lead you to believe that he may not understand things.

That said, he is in line with what I preach to my guys concerning effectiveness. I have never worked with him, but he has a good reputation for being able to walk the talk.

Kevin.
I see that your Dojo is an Akido Dojo in the Location description for you and you said that you preach to your guys more less what this guy said (when it comes to effectiveness). I can't say that I disagree too much with most of what he said. I'm just wondering how you incorporated these training principles/methods to your Aikido practice.

Dan.
I'm pretty surprised at your responces pretty well agreeing with what this guy said in the video. Mainly because at the begining of his speach he mentioned that he will not be teaching them any "F@*^cking hippy bul$@it Chi/ki force" yet you're one of the guys on this forum that promotes Ki develpment and talks about how it can be very usefull. You mentioned in other threads that you have mastered it to some degree and find it pretty effective and applicable. What are your thoughts on that?

I watched the video and it sounded EXACTLY like it was supposed to. There are a bunch of guys in this field of martial arts who are not of the stereotypical make-up, but Mr. Thornton has nailed it.

First, pick a buzzword from the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do and rap about it's necessity and meaning. Pay careful attention to not cite the source of your inspiration.

Second, say something about really fighting. Anything will do.

Third, attack other martial arts. Be sure to use the words "dead", "pattern", and "useless". Karate and aikido make the best targets, because we all know Bruce Lee studied kung fu that means it's cool.

Fourth, explain that your system has no kata, then find one technique and "break-it-down" instead.

The rest is all optional. You can now teach any technique.

I understand the points being made here and even agree with them (generally speaking), but my problem is that these guys are convinced they are re-inventing the wheel and they deny the validity of a wide range of practices based on something they are not really even sure of.

I watched the video and it sounded EXACTLY like it was supposed to. There are a bunch of guys in this field of martial arts who are not of the stereotypical make-up, but Mr. Thornton has nailed it.

First, pick a buzzword from the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do and rap about it's necessity and meaning. Pay careful attention to not cite the source of your inspiration.

Second, say something about really fighting. Anything will do.

Third, attack other martial arts. Be sure to use the words "dead", "pattern", and "useless". Karate and aikido make the best targets, because we all know Bruce Lee studied kung fu that means it's cool.

Fourth, explain that your system has no kata, then find one technique and "break-it-down" instead.

The rest is all optional. You can now teach any technique.

I understand the points being made here and even agree with them (generally speaking), but my problem is that these guys are convinced they are re-inventing the wheel and they deny the validity of a wide range of practices based on something they are not really even sure of.

Wow you really have no idea of what Matt talks about. Yes he hates kata and static drills. But his points are very valid. He is saying you need to understand why you are training and what you are really doing vs what you want from your training. If you say you are doing kung fu for self defense and you are only doing 'kata' (or whatever they call it) how can you expect to know how to apply it when someone is really trying to hurt you? The first time you get punched in the face your whole world is going to change. Your going to find out that you have never really felt what it was like to block a real attack, or how to maintain your guard while someone is raining punches in. But if you are doing kata because its fun or because you want to preserve tradition, he would say more power to you.

People get upset when you attack their beliefs. People get mad at me when I tell them I don't think they are training efficiently with their time. One of the things that hits home for me is during his Iceland seminar. He shows a 'armbar kata' (funny thing to watch, one guy pretending to do a armbar). It is obvious that this will never help you do a armbar. The same thing goes with his chess kata. In fact, I believe he is very right, single person kata will give you poor technique. You will take shortcuts in your technique because you do not have another person resisting you. I see this everyday and the proof is in what you can find by walking into 90% of the martial art schools in the US. Standing around dancing does not make you a good fighter. How many times have you learned something in kata only to be told "in a real fight you will want to do this instead". I have heard that tons of times, in TKD. I have heard it tons of times in Judo (this is how you should do O Goshi for your test, but in randori you never want to try it that way.), even in aikido. Yes, this idea of aliveness isn't a new idea. But its not a JKD idea either. Its a wrestling idea, a boxing idea, a judo idea, a baseball idea, and a football idea. I would even suspect that this is how all martial artists learned back 'in the old days' I bet kata came later in life. I could be wrong, but I really feel there is no faster way to gain competency then though doing.

I didn't' want to post in this thread because I don't really care if aikido can work in a fight. I don't use it when I fight. I use bjj and mt. I use aikido so I do not have to fight. I do want to relate my story of my bjj training. I grew up studying TKD. I got a blackbelt when I was 17 (started at age 12). I was very successful at point sparing. After my instructor died I went around trying other arts for a while kung fu, karate, all the stuff in town. I stayed away from judo and boxing because I thought they were 'just sports' (and bjj didn't' exist in my area yet and I hadn't even heard of the UFC). Eventually I got into reality based self defense stuff like krav maga and did that for a year or so before it got boring (I found out this wasn't really due to krav maga, but due to my instructor's limited training in krav maga). I then got back into TKD and Hopkido for a short while but I just didn't' like the current environment of TKD (5 year old blackbelts, etc). Eventually I found a great aikido place near me.

Aikido was a huge eye opener for me. I am training with great guys who had lots of experience in other martial arts. My instructors are awesome. They introduced me to the UFC (which I had heard of by then, but didn't really watch all the time) and really changed my ideas on what fighting was. After about a year of aikido, I was really into it and was reading regularly about the founder and tohei. I realized a lot of these guys came from judo and I wanted to experience it. So I joined a judo club in town and trained there for about 3 months (in addition to my aikido training). They focused on sport judo and the instructor really had a hatred of ground work and didn't' spend much time teaching it. I went to a few other clubs and found that I was getting beat because of my lack of ground work. I eventually wanted to fix this as I wanted to be complete so I found and joined a bjj club.

The bjj club changed my entire outlook on training. The training was hard and fast, very physical. No more then 15 minutes was ever devoted to training techniques, most of the time was spent sparing. A typical class would be warm ups, body weight exercises, new techniques, the same new technique drills with increased resistance, then sparing. This was way more sparing then I ever did in judo (which focused on fitting in for throws and static throws more then anything) and I was loosing a lot. I was loosing to guys who only had 3-4 months bjj and no other martial training their whole lives. Even in MMA sparing (where you would think my other training would help) I was just getting ran over. Funny enough, I eventually quit judo because of sport politics and rules of the sport (I found the MMA ruleset is really want I want with the sport bjj ruleset a close second).

I started reading and listening to Matt Thornton, changing the way I trained on my own time and setting up a small gym in my basement. I started working resistance based drills with my friends (isolate a technique and work it with movement, timing, and resistance, increase resistance, then incorporate back into sparing). Punches, kicks, chokes, whatever, I trained it all like this for about a month. All of a sudden I had changed, people in mma/bjj class started saying things like "wow, your getting really good" and "you have really changed in the last few weeks". I even started trying to incorporate my aikido training into this mindset. I started working ikkyo and a few of the other basics I've learned and developing drills that fit with mma competition. I am not sure if this is due to my inexperience in aikido (its very likely) but it always ends up just looking like poor judo or bjj. And this is how I've been training to date.

Whats my point on this insanely huge post? I have studied martial arts for well over 13 years. I am very successful at everything I have tried. As much 'knowledge' as I have, it wasn't until I cut away the fat. I removed the kata's and 'ideas' of what good technique was, removed the patterned one step sparing, removed the 'you throw the static punch as wait' training, and removed my notions of what I thought a fight was like that I started getting good at defending myself. Once I started training everything with timing, motion, and resistance my skills increased. I gained more practical skill in 3 months then I have gained in 13 years! I don't train for the street when I train my bjj, but after training bjj I really had doubts if I could defend myself on the street. Now I know my limitations. I know what I am capable of doing. I know what I am willing to do. And I know what I need to improve. I recently had a friend come stay with me for a week and I took him with me to bjj class. He has been training in tkd and hopkido for as long as I have been training in the martial arts. Very athletic and very good at what he does (He used to beat me in point sparing constantly). I was amazed at how easy he was to control. His strikes seemed telegraphed and slow, i got the clinch and takedown easy and really had to use no effort to control him. We went over how I have been training and he is adopting the same methods I use and beginning supplemental training in bjj.

After telling this story, most people ask me why I am still training aikido. Its all dead patterns, and kata, etc. I can only answer this. My aikido instructor can still defeat my attempts to attack him. I have performed the wrong attacks, I have tried to sneak one by, I have adjusted my stance and grip. He just does whatever it is he is doing and throws me. It is that curiosity that drives me back. I want to know how to do that. In the mean time, I'll continue to train with as much motion, timing, and resistance as possible. I really don't think it has anything to do with what art you train, but just how you train. I think that training with as little static drilling and kata as possible will help you gain skill as quickly as possible. As you get older maybe the kata and other less physical aspects of the training can come into play. Maybe that is what allows you to train forever. I really don't know. I'm almost 26 years old and I got a while still to bang it out

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone came to me for self defense. If they told me they only had 6-1 year to learn how to defend themselves, I would not teach them kata's, or one step sparing, or point sparing. I would teach them techniques for no more then 6 minutes per technique, start a drill with motion and timing, add resistance immediately, increase resistance and get them sparing as quick as possible, hopefully by the end of the first night. I guarantee that if you took two people with the same body type and physical conditioning, trained one the 'traditional' way with katas and 'dead pattern' drills. And trained the other with 'aliveness' by using lots of drills with motion and resistance, and lots of sparing. Then the two met for a fight, the one who trained with 'aliveness' would look very good compared to the one who focused his training on kata. You don't even need to give up your kata and pattern drills. Why is there anything wrong with adding a new dimension to your training. Try adding more sparing, or adding resistance to drills now and again. You might love it, you might hate it. But dismissing it is just as bad as saying kata is worthless. I think I am qualified to say that I think kata is worthless because I've done kata for more then a decade. But most of the people who decry resistance drilling and rough sparing have never tried it. If you find something that works better for you, then that is how you should train. We are not cookie cutters. Even in the 'aliveness' world there are arguments on the best way to train. Gi or No-gi? Allow neck cranks? Knee bars? Look at how many different opinions there are out there. Everyone has their own idea and its great.

Its in your hands to make the most of your training. Your teacher can only point the way he thinks is best. He however is not all knowing and can be wrong in some cases. Martial arts are a very oral tradition, it has to be this way. Video, books, etc lose a lot of the little things that make these arts work. But there is a problem with oral traditions, things are lost, or changed over the years. Things can become wrong. Old ideas are rediscovered all the time. If you are unwilling to look at these new ideas and old discoveries and examine your training and try new things, you are really doing a disservice to your art. It is going to make a lot of people angry, but I think it is necessary.

Whoaaa long post Don. You and I think very much alike! You figured many things out way before I did! I didn't figure much of this out until I was 38 or 39!

I think the whole MMA movement is really re-defining many of the paradigms in martial arts. For the record, there is a place for aikido in all of this...the MMA movement does not take away from aikido, simply allows us to better appreciate the complexity of things and allows us to judge and have critical reasoning that is much more mature in nature.

Wow, some great feedback, thanks! Personally, I know I'll be training in aikido for as long as I possibly can. I love it, and that's enough. But I think I could really benefit from some kind of sparring in the short term; I was thinking about taking up boxing when I go to university in a few months. I tried judo when I was younger, but (for me) the rule set just seemed too artificial to be worthwhile for developing self-defense type awareness.

Think hard about why you are studying. One thing Matt stresses is that this is important. Being honest with yourself.

Why do you want to box? Sparring for sparring sake is kinda a waste of time. Boxing might be good for learning somethings, certainly about getting hit! Might even get something out of it...just make sure you are clear why you are doing it.

Judo, even though there are rules, there are some good things to be gleaned from it. Again focus on what you want to obtain from it and why you are doing it.

Since I've been doing aikido for about 5 years, I'm still a newby. We do all of our technique work so far with no to mild resistance. My sensei says once we get better and better at our techniques, we will increase resistance and work towards randori training where its pretty much full resistance. This is still not sparring in my mind since you still have established Uke's and Tori's and the outcome is pretty much well known. I'm wondering if this type of ttraining is still considered "dead" training. Will we actually have to spar full contact and resistance without letting anyone know who the tori and uke is in order to get out of this "dead" training? Any thoughts?

Kevin.
I see that your Dojo is an Akido Dojo in the Location description for you and you said that you preach to your guys more less what this guy said (when it comes to effectiveness). I can't say that I disagree too much with most of what he said. I'm just wondering how you incorporated these training principles/methods to your Aikido practice.

Dan.
I'm pretty surprised at your responces pretty well agreeing with what this guy said in the video. Mainly because at the begining of his speach he mentioned that he will not be teaching them any "F@*^cking hippy bul$@it Chi/ki force" yet you're one of the guys on this forum that promotes Ki develpment and talks about how it can be very usefull. You mentioned in other threads that you have mastered it to some degree and find it pretty effective and applicable. What are your thoughts on that?

Paul

Paul-hope you don't mind the first name use.

I don't advocate or even discuss "Ki" per se, as most people -for many reasons that are as controversial as the subject itself-don't agree on what Ki is.
The fellow in the video was ...in my view discussing his knowledge and understanding of something he doesn't know or can express. I just allow for it and continue listening.

With Internal skills, while the discussions may be judged insubstantial here....I do the same thing with the video-I just "allow" for that view. Anyone who has done the work can demonstrably show various levels of progress that do indeed…. have substance. Whether or not the "audience" gets it or agrees here bears no reflection on the truth of it.

Here is another major point that many folks miss.
These skills are not about us. Our individual successes or failures do not reflect the validity or truth of these underlying internal skills-just where we are each at with expressing them.
It really doesn't matter if a. is better than b. at exhibiting …his…. progress. Think of it in Aikido,or jujutsu-does one player, being worse than another; disqualify the entire art?
Of course not.

So it is with internal skills. The skills are skills that may never be used for fighting. But whether or not someone can use them to fight does not disqualify the skills. I have played with CMA folks who can demonstrate the skills but they really can’t fight much. That doesn’t detract from the validity of the skills does it? Then I have played with fighters who are all muscle-but still- damn good fighters. Their talent was in their fighting acumen-.not optimal use of their bodies.
The two; internal skills and fighting skills; can remain a separate topic with no trouble. However, some are exploring, and learning how to join them. I think something substantial can be born of it.

You do not know me. But I am, and have always been a pragmatist. Show me a thing and if you capture my interest-not always easy to do-I will work it tenaciously, even obsessively and experiment. But always with practical, measurable, results as a goal.
Cheers
Dan

Thanks for that explanation Dan (as you can see I feel pretty confortable with first names).

I think that Mr. Thonton made some pretty good points but his arrogance during his speach was shining through too intensely for my tastes. Training with "aliveness" is great but refining technique to the point where its natural for your body to perform it properly is necessary in my mind. This technique execution still still requires timing (which he said it doesn't) in order to perform it in a randori type situations. No timing and you get smacked in the head or torso or whatever. No timing and the uke rolls out of the technique. No timing and the uke counters with a smack to an open area. I'm not sure if Mr. Thornton really understands Aikido since he said that the movements are all choriographed. He basically said that a kotegeashi would never work in a real fight. I personally think that he is wrong. I know of a few instances where Aikido technique (Ikajo, Nikkio, kotehineri) worked well in real encounters and you hear these stories on here quite often from bouncers, law enforcement people who are subjected to such situations. Perhaps Mr. Thornton is just closed minded and a good salesman for his system. There is nothing better to entice new people than to convince them that everything else is worthless.

Nothing wrong with how you are training to learn aikido. While I agree with much of what Matt says, I would not say that anything other than what he says is "dead" training. It is not good logic.

Dan and Mike Sigman can discuss this at GREAT length! In fact if you go into the "Jo trick" post and take your time and read carefully through the post you will see us debating back and forth about the merits of internal/KI training. I agree with what these guys are saying, but we debate mainly about the realitive importance of this in martial arts. The converation gets confusing and cryptic at times, but I think you will see the value, or lack of value, of Internal training such is done in aikido and how it applies to reality.

No aikido is not a waste of time. I advanced very rapidlly in the type of training that Mr Thornton follows because of my aikido background, so there is a transference of skill.

That said, If I was only concerned with the objectives of what Mr Thornton is talking about, I would say, yes aikido is a waste of time. There is no good reason to train in traditional aikido if you are concerned with becoming an effective physical fighter.

Conflict is much more complex than a physical fight though. The majority of us will never be in a physical confrontation that requires the degree of skill that you learn in SBG. However, for the rest of your life you will deal with conflict and confrontation daily in many manifestations. So, from that perspective, I'd say that training the way Mr Thornton trains could be percieved as a waste of time.

Point is each has it's place in the big scheme.

One thing I wholeheartedly agree with what he says it this. "think for yourself, and figure out WHY you are training". Many of us really don't know what it is that we are doing and why we are doing it....if you are not searching for the answer to this question, you could be on the wrong path.

About the only thing I disagree wth you on is this notion you have that you think you understand what I am talking about. What I am and have been discussing is practical body mechanics. Relagating the discussion to etherial "ki" debates has been your bent.

I am talking about a better way to knock someone out, choke em out, resist being thrown, throwing, or being unlockable your self.
How on this green earth you think that doesn't relate to martial arts is your lack of understanding of these skills sets.
If you have learned how to stack someone or to smash them or to post you have learned principles of mechanics and how they effect tow bodies in conflict.
Likewise, internal skills are principles that will make your body more efficient to handle load stress or deliver power.
I think I'm done here as I keep stressing the practicality and you continually relagate is to "ki" deabtes.
I'd rather you said "Dan I hear you . I just disagree that these skills are usefull." Than to ignore the fact that I am continually stressing practical fighting aspects.
At least we are then communicating straight up, but dissagreeing.

I think it is very possible to train aikido in a 'alive' way. The first step would be to introduce motion and timing to a basic technique. This would mean a non static uke (moving around looking for an opening) a good solid commited punch (we already have that) and a level of resistance (this could be anywhere from 1% to 100% depending on your level). So now we got 2 guys moving with one guy trying to hit the other and the other guy trying to do a technique. Kinda sounds like aikido randori to me.

I think what matt stresses is that you can not stop there though. You need to step it up to its eventual conclusion. 100% resistance. This means 2 people with as little protective gear as possible using all of their techniques to subdue their partner. This does not have to be competitive or ego driven. Once people learn it is ok to 'loose' they will find they can learn much faster. Just like you learn at lot from being uke, you can learn a lot from getting tapped by a more skilled partner.

However, I dont think Matt has a problem with you never sparing as long as you are honest with yourself and with what you are doing. Identify your weakness and strenghts. Anyone who thinks their aikido can handle all ranges of combat without actaully having trained in those ranges of combat is fooling themselves. Being honest with yourself and your training partners is very healthy and will help you learn much faster. Being dishonest with yourself and your partners will breed distrust, fear, and ignorance. These traits will be past down to your students and the bullcrap will get further ingrained into the art. Its ok to not know the answer, and its ok to not be a uber killing machine. Its better to state you do not know then to make up some crap and then say it will work based on what you think you know vs actually trying it in a fully resisting enviroment. A lot of people think what they know works, and at the same time get offended if you question them. I think this points to the fact they dont really know if what they know works. I know what I can and can't do. i know my triangle choke setups are weak and my guard gets passed trying them. I know I tend to turn sideways when I get pressed in standup. I know I have a really good Harai-goshi and really strong choke defenses. It feels good to not have to question if I can really do something when someone is seriously trying to punch me in the face.

I'm not relegating it to a KI debate. "I hear you", I simply don't agree wtih the disection of the physical. If you know how to stack some body, punch them, or choke them...then you know how to do it. Some are able to do it better than others.

I think you learn to do these things better by concentrating on doing the techniques over and over through concentration on good technique.

What I don't understand is how the Jo Trick or Push hands would transfer to teaching you how to do these things more efficiently. I see the indirect benefit, not the direct benefit.

That is the only place we differ.

When You are talking Skills..I don't understand what you are identifying as skills. Push hands is an exercise. Jo trick is an exercise, kokyu tanden ho is an exercise. Skills are things that directly correalate to fighting. punching, choking, dominate position.

I do a form of push hands, albeit poorly, as I am not versed in Tai Chi. I have my guys do kokyu tanden ho as a warm up...I find value in them to teach the things you are talking about...so as I have stated I see value and merit. They help develop things that are important.

They do not make you stronger, they do not help you deliver power, they will help you move more efficiently, to use proper movement to avoid having to use power...I think we just see it differently.

If not, then maybe I don't understand as I have not experienced what you are talking about. Maybe I will one day. We should get together and train...then we don't have to banter back and forth here.

I thnk we are communicating just fine, just some static because these things are hard to conceptualize in writing.

I think you're right that if we played together we could "talk" better.
I do see them as a means to deliver power and "be" stronger.
If I showed you what I am yakin about I do think you would say "oh" cool show me that again and since you seem to be my kind of skeptic and "rubber... meet road." guy...I think you would adopt them and train them. Trust me Bud, I could care less about huggy feely hippy crap. Likewise I am not stating they make you invincible either. Its just more power or strength...that is relaxed.

Cool Dan. I like the tree hugging hippy stuff personally. It is fun being able to save the rainforest, save animals, prevent greenhouse gases, and to be able to empathize about the guys ass you are kicking. Makes for a complete person.